Author Topic: @H  (Read 5140 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13974
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: @H
« Reply #140 on: January 30, 2012, 04:25:50 PM »
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.

There might not exists anything beyond its boundaries. A conclusion through scientific or empirical means would be impossible at that point. That's where philosophical arguments truly come into play. However, if it is indeed a multiverse, the BGV theorem would still apply to the multiverse, requiring an absolute beginning of the multiverse as well.

You're talking about something that contains entire universes. Why would you assume that it would follow the same laws of physics?
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #141 on: January 30, 2012, 04:28:43 PM »
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.

There might not exists anything beyond its boundaries. A conclusion through scientific or empirical means would be impossible at that point. That's where philosophical arguments truly come into play. However, if it is indeed a multiverse, the BGV theorem would still apply to the multiverse, requiring an absolute beginning of the multiverse as well.

You're talking about something that contains entire universes. Why would you assume that it would follow the same laws of physics?

Why assume one even exists?
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Ħ

  • Posts: 3484
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #142 on: January 30, 2012, 04:39:28 PM »
Once again, even if you assume the universe had a beginning (which is entirely possible/likely), the simple fact is we have no idea what exists beyond the bounds of it. Everything you can say about it, whether that it was created by God or it exists in a multiverse or whatever, is unsubstantiated.

There might not exists anything beyond its boundaries. A conclusion through scientific or empirical means would be impossible at that point. That's where philosophical arguments truly come into play. However, if it is indeed a multiverse, the BGV theorem would still apply to the multiverse, requiring an absolute beginning of the multiverse as well.

You're talking about something that contains entire universes. Why would you assume that it would follow the same laws of physics?
It might not follow the same laws of physics, but I think we would expect our universe's abstract truths (math statements, for example) to be true outside of our universe. On the same token, I think the abstract idea of infinity and how it can't exist in material form would also apply outside the universe.
"All great works are prepared in the desert, including the redemption of the world. The precursors, the followers, the Master Himself, all obeyed or have to obey one and the same law. Prophets, apostles, preachers, martyrs, pioneers of knowledge, inspired artists in every art, ordinary men and the Man-God, all pay tribute to loneliness, to the life of silence, to the night." - A. G. Sertillanges

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13974
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: @H
« Reply #143 on: January 30, 2012, 04:41:55 PM »
I'm not assuming anything. I'm simply saying that there's no reason to hold any belief regarding what is or isn't beyond the universe.
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8739
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: @H
« Reply #144 on: January 30, 2012, 05:33:27 PM »
Omega;
This will be my last response to you in this thread, as I am running out of patience.  Discussing things with you has no possible chance of progress.

BGV is one of many possible theories.  Please stop treating it as the correct and proven theory.
And Im not even arguing against it...just that it is not even close to being proven, and there are other theories and possibilities.  That is where you have the massive disconnect.
Here is another theory:

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model
In a flat universe, all of the local curvature and local geometry is flat. It is generally assumed that it is described by a Euclidean space, although there are some spatial geometries that are flat and bounded in one or more directions (like the surface of a cylinder, for example).
The alternative two-dimensional spaces with a Euclidean metric are the cylinder and the Möbius strip, which are bounded in one direction but not the other, and the torus and Klein bottle, which are compact.
In three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the 3-Torus. See the doughnut theory of the universe
In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching some fixed rate. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.
Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing

Boom.  See how there are other theories out there?  Some accepted by most physicists and flying directly against your assertions?  Now can you see where I am coming from, and why is is monumentally pointless in discussing anything with you?

So no  :facepalm: please.  I should use it towards you to illustrate your complete lack of ability to consider any other possibilities and/or theories that may not feel right to you.  You have a stubborn attachme
one view, and that type of behavoir is not condusive to discussions here.

Good Day.

This is also not condusive to good discussion.   Kudos to omega for not reacting to it

Offline bosk1

  • The Merciless
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2042
Re: @H
« Reply #145 on: January 30, 2012, 06:30:05 PM »
Yesh, would your feelings be hurt if I just up and banned everybody from P/R?
Quote from: ariich
Don't trust anything.  Especially bosk.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #146 on: January 30, 2012, 07:05:30 PM »
Why when I try to look up the BVG Theorem, all I see are creation, catholic, and religious websites?
Most about WL Craig using it for support.  Hmmm :\

Why cant I find any articles about whether this theorem is widely accepted by the scientific community?
Where is the peer review?

Anyway, the authors themselves say that their theorem does not say the universe had to have a beginning.

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

Which doesnt negate the possibility that the universe began to exist out of nothing, and is infinite in size as the Flat model shows.  Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model.  This, to me, looks like it is the most accepted view of the universe, and as a flat universe, it can be infinite and come from nothing.  It doesnt have to exist infinitely in the past...it can be infinite in size and come from nothing.

Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).

Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
"f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning


I personally would like to know about the subtleties.  Perhaps he is speaking of the fact that they do not know what happened pre big-bang...and even says that in order to know that, one must be ready to tackle tough paradoxes.  Regardless, the author himself is saying the universe did NOT have to have a beginning.

Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,
"What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event."
This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.


In short, the theorem which necessitates a beginning, doesnt negate the theory that the universe can be infinite in size and time going forwars, and that it could have come from Nothing, as shown in the flat universe theory.

I can understand why someone would latch on to this as it appears that it is proof that the universe has a beginning.  However, this is just another educated guess like so many others, yet with still so much information not yet available to us.

I just cant seem to find any articles on wether this theorem is accepted anywhere outside people and/or organizations that are trying to prove the existence of god.


« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 07:19:04 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #147 on: January 30, 2012, 07:24:35 PM »
Why when I try to look up the BVG Theorem, all I see are creation, catholic, and religious websites?
Most about WL Craig using it for support.  Hmmm :\

Why cant I find any articles about whether this theorem is widely accepted by the scientific community?
Where is the peer review?

Anyway, the authors themselves say that their theorem does not say the universe had to have a beginning.

The 2003 Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper (pdf) shows that “almost all” inflationary models of the universe (as opposed to Dr. Craig’s “any universe”) will reach a boundary in the past – meaning our universe probably doesn’t exist infinitely into the past.

Which doesnt negate the possibility that the universe began to exist out of nothing, and is infinite in size as the Flat model shows.  Euclidean space is flat and infinite, and a flat universe can have zero total energy and thus can come from nothing.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has confirmed that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.[1] Within the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (FLRW) model, the presently most popular shape of the Universe found to fit observational data according to cosmologists is the infinite flat model.  This, to me, looks like it is the most accepted view of the universe, and as a flat universe, it can be infinite and come from nothing.  It doesnt have to exist infinitely in the past...it can be infinite in size and come from nothing.


The idea of universe causing itself to come into existence from nothing (as in literally nothing, not simply empty space, etc) is an idea that is more ludicrous than magic.

Quote
Dr. Craig seems to interpret this information as “the universe definitely began to exist” although that is a bit presumptuous. For example, this theorem doesn’t rule out Stephen Hawking’s no-boundary proposal which states that time may be finite without any real boundary (just like a sphere is finite in surface area while it has no “beginning”).


Again, from one of my previous posts: "what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe."


Quote
Furthermore, the author of the Arizona Atheist blog asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
"f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning


I personally would like to know about the subtleties.  Perhaps he is speaking of the fact that they do not know what happened pre big-bang...and even says that in order to know that, one must be ready to tackle tough paradoxes.  Regardless, the author himself is saying the universe did NOT have to have a beginning.

I addressed this in a previous post. The complete quote goes as follows:

"[The only way] you can avoid the conclusion of the BGV theorem is by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable; small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so that it would never make it to the expanding phase. So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I prove with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is 'yes'. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is 'no,' but that is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion."

Quote
Nothing in the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin paper suggests a beginning from “absolute nothingness” (as Craig often claims). In fact, the opposite is true. The authors write,
"What can lie beyond the boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event."
This “quantum nucleation event” refers to a paper Vilenkin wrote in 1982 (pdf) which discusses the universe coming into being through quantum mechanics. Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing” but Craig has already criticized this work.


This, too, has been addressed:

"What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary
of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of
the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The
boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which
can be determined from the appropriate instanton.
Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary"

The average expansion condition cannot, in fact, be avoided.

Quote
I can understand why someone would latch on to this as it appears that it is proof that the universe has a beginning.  However, this is just another educated guess like so many others, yet with still so much information not yet available to us.

Alan Guth States:

"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning."


Alan Guth states of possible preceding universes or multiverses:

"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."

And, conclusively, Vilenkin states:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".

Quote
I just cant seem to find any articles on wether this theorem is accepted anywhere outside people and/or organizations that are trying to prove the existence of god.

It should be of no surprise that the BVG Theorem is mostly mentioned exclusively on theistic websites; atheists would much rather turn a blind eye to this sort of information.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 07:34:29 PM by Omega »
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8739
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: @H
« Reply #148 on: January 30, 2012, 07:29:13 PM »
Yesh, would your feelings be hurt if I just up and banned everybody from P/R?

That could be fun

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #149 on: January 30, 2012, 07:42:41 PM »
The idea of universe causing itself to come into existence from nothing (as in literally nothing, not simply empty space, etc) is an idea that is more ludicrous than magic.

It would seem ludicrous, especially if a person thinks they know what is, and what isnt possible in something as vast and incredible as the universe.  Too bad it is shown that it is theoretically possible.  People thought a round earth was ludicrous at one time.
But I can understand ones resistance to opening yourself to the possibility as it may be in conflict with ones faith.

Again, from one of my previous posts: "what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe."

Not true.  It clearly does not work with ALL inflationary models. 

This is from the author himself....asked Vilenkin if his theorem with Guth and Borde proves that the universe had a beginning, and Vilenkin responded:
"If someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning.

Interestingly, many theists use Vilenkin’s paper as evidence that the universe came from “literally nothing”.

You really want this theorem to be the one correct answer.  It clearly is not, nor does it purport to be.
It is an educated guess...that is still missing information.


I addressed this in a previous post. The complete quote goes as follows:
"[The only way] you can avoid the conclusion of the BGV theorem is by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable; small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so that it would never make it to the expanding phase. So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I prove with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is 'yes'. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is 'no,' but that is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion."
."

My response is simply thebolded and underlined above, in the words of the author.  How do you explain this? 

Alan Guth States:
"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning."."

But the theorem cant prove a beginning for all inflationary models.  That is all that is needed.  I am not trying to prove there is no beginning...just that you cant prove there is one.  And no one has yet.


Alan Guth states of possible preceding universes or multiverses:
"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."
."

Yet the authors admit that their theorem does not work with all inflationary models.

And, conclusively, Vilenkin states:
"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".."

Yet the "proof" doesnt work with all inflationary models.  And that the proof doesnt say wht the beginning is....as it could be creation from nothing as the flat universe shows.

It should be of no surprise that the BVG Theorem is mostly mentioned exclusively on theistic websites; atheists would much rather turn a blind eye to this sort of information.."

And I guess the physicists, cosmologists, and scientific community at large are turning a blind eye too.  Hmmm.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2012, 08:15:43 PM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #150 on: January 30, 2012, 08:12:28 PM »
The idea of universe causing itself to come into existence from nothing (as in literally nothing, not simply empty space, etc) is an idea that is more ludicrous than magic.

It would seem ludicrous, especially if a person thinks they know all about what is possible in the universe.  Too bad it is shown that it is theoretically possible.  People thought a round earth was ludicrous at one time.
But I can understand your resistance to opening yourself to the possibility as it may be in conflict with your faith.

No, it hasn't. You believe it has because cosmologists use misleading terms to define nothing. For example, Hawking & Mlodinow have postulated that the universe could have created itself "from nothing" merely by cause of the universal laws. Pity they don't realize that "universal laws" are not "nothing." Equally as erroneously, many atheists profess that quantum events prove that something can come from nothing. Pity that they don't understand that they are using the word "nothing" merely to refer to space devoid of matter (a vacuum) which is clearly not nothing.

Juicy discussion on the matter here:
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/02/why-are-some-physicists-so-bad-at.html
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-part-of-nothing-dont-you.html

Quote
Again, from one of my previous posts: "what makes the Bode-Guth-Vilenkin theorem so powerful is that it holds regardless of the physical description of the very early universe."

Not true.  It clearly does not work with ALL inflationary models. 

Vilenkin states:

"The remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein's equation. So even if Einstein's gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold."



Quote
I addressed this in a previous post. The complete quote goes as follows:
"[The only way] you can avoid the conclusion of the BGV theorem is by postulating that the universe was contracting prior to some time. This sounds as if there is nothing wrong with having a contraction prior to expansion. But the problem is that a contracting universe is highly unstable; small perturbations would cause it to develop all sorts of messy singularities so that it would never make it to the expanding phase. So if someone asks me whether or not the theorem I prove with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is 'yes'. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is 'no,' but that is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion."
."

My response is simply thebolded and underlined above, in the words of the author.  How do you explain this?

It is explained by Vilenkin himself in that very quote! "That is to say that you have the problem with the messy singularities that prevent re-expansion." He's merely being humble; were the answer no, the universe would have never made it to the inflation stage and we would not be able to have this conversation.

Once again, I re-iterate Vilenkin's conclusion on the BVG Theorem:

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #151 on: January 30, 2012, 08:24:38 PM »
Try all you like, there is no proof one way or the other.  The physicists, cosmologists, scientists, and philosophers all agree that there is no definitive answer at this time.  They surely dont think BVG is the answer as there is nothing to find showing wide acceptance of the theorem other than religious websites.  It is all educated guesses and theories...with one perhaps being proven correct some day.
You are very entrenched in your position, and it is clear that you will not be moved to think that there are other very real possibilites.
There really isnt a point in discussing it any further.
Goodnight.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #152 on: January 30, 2012, 08:36:02 PM »
Try all you like, there is no proof one way or the other.  The physicists, cosmologists, scientists, and philosophers all agree that there is no definitive answer at this time.  They surely dont think BVG is the answer as there is nothing to find showing wide acceptance of the theorem other than religious websites.  It is all educated guesses and theories...with one perhaps being proven correct some day.
You are very entrenched in your position, and it is clear that you will not be moved to think that there are other very real possibilites.
There really isnt a point in discussing it any further.
Goodnight.

The objections you sought to raise to the BGV Theorem were all rather weak and revealed as unfounded or taking quotes out of context. I provided further information re-assuring the validity of the theorem and put their quotes into context to reveal their intended meaning. Respectfully, if anyone is entrenched in their position, it appears to be you. Well I tried. It appears that more than proof is necessary to convince an unreasonable man.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #153 on: January 30, 2012, 08:43:00 PM »
I would have been more than willing to give BVG more credit if i could find more acceptance for it other than you, Craig, and creationist websites.  And it is difficult to see how I can be entrenched in a position, when I dont hold a position on any theory or theorem.  I suppot that there are many possibilities, the likes of which we havent begun to imagine.  I an humble enough to know that at this point in time, we humans dont have the definitive answers.  But I guess you feel you do.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #154 on: January 30, 2012, 08:50:23 PM »
I would have been more than willing to give BVG more credit if i could find more acceptance for it other than you, Craig, and creationist websites. 

I'm sure the theorem either states or assumes that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago - a fact creationists would no doubt oppose.


Quote
And it is difficult to see how I can be entrenched in a position, when I dont hold a position on any theory or theorem.  I suppot that there are many possibilities, the likes of which we havent begun to imagine.  I an humble enough to know that at this point in time, we humans dont have the definitive answers.  But I guess you feel you do.

Yes, there are many possibilities. Yet the disconnect here is that some are more reasonable or likely than others!

ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #155 on: January 30, 2012, 08:54:08 PM »
I would have been more than willing to give BVG more credit if i could find more acceptance for it other than you, Craig, and creationist websites. 

I'm sure the theorem either states or assumes that the universe began to exist 13.7 billion years ago - a fact creationists would no doubt oppose.


Quote
And it is difficult to see how I can be entrenched in a position, when I dont hold a position on any theory or theorem.  I suppot that there are many possibilities, the likes of which we havent begun to imagine.  I an humble enough to know that at this point in time, we humans dont have the definitive answers.  But I guess you feel you do.

Yes, there are many possibilities. Yet the disconnect here is that some are more reasonable or likely than others!

LOL.  That wont stop creationists from cherry picking what they want.  They do it with the bible too.

And I am glad you mention the many possibilities with some more reasonable or likely than others.  Not one more likely than any other.  That is all I have been saying....that there are other reasonable and likely possibilities.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #156 on: January 30, 2012, 08:58:58 PM »
Quote
Quote
Yes, there are many possibilities. Yet the disconnect here is that some are more reasonable or likely than others!

LOL.  That wont stop creationists from cherry picking what they want.  They do it with the bible too.

And I am glad you mention the many possibilities with some more reasonable or likely than others.  Not one more likely than any other.  That is all I have been saying....that there are other reasonable and likely possibilities.

Yet you must also understand that among these "some" that are taken more or less seriously, the most probable and reasonable of them is the absolute beginning of the universe, supported by the BGV theorem.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #157 on: January 30, 2012, 09:06:30 PM »
Quote
Quote
Yes, there are many possibilities. Yet the disconnect here is that some are more reasonable or likely than others!

LOL.  That wont stop creationists from cherry picking what they want.  They do it with the bible too.

And I am glad you mention the many possibilities with some more reasonable or likely than others.  Not one more likely than any other.  That is all I have been saying....that there are other reasonable and likely possibilities.

Yet you must also understand that among these "some" that are taken more or less seriously, the most probable and reasonable of them is the absolute beginning of the universe, supported by the BGV theorem.

I agree that the most supported position is that the universe in its current state had a beginning with the big bang. 
There is no generally accepted position on what happened before that.

What happened before the Big Bang? The conventional answer to that question is usually, “There is no such thing as ‘before the Big Bang.’” That’s the event that started it all. But the right answer, says physicist Sean Carroll, is, “We just don’t know.” Carroll, as well as many other physicists and cosmologists have begun to consider the possibility of time before the Big Bang, as well as alternative theories of how our universe came to be.
Granted, — and Carroll stressed this point — any research on these topics is generally considered speculation at this time. “None of this is firmly established stuff,” he said. “I would bet even money that this is wrong. But hopefully I’ll be able to come back in 10 years and tell you that we’ve figured it all out.”


We just dont know.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Cruithne

  • Posts: 277
  • Watched
Re: @H
« Reply #158 on: January 31, 2012, 03:53:07 AM »
But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorem implies that the early quantum vacuum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning.

BGV theorem demonstrates that a class of eternal inflation models (which are not necessarily accurate models of reality) must have a singularity in their past.

It doesn't really tell us anything dramatic, it just leads us to the position as already stated: if such models of inflation are correct and there was a big bang singularity we cannot currently say anything reliable about the state of the universe at and beyond that boundary.

It does not prove that the kind of inflationary models it deals with are accurate. If they are it doesn't preclude the no boundary proposal and it doesn't preclude the possibility that our observable universe is embedded in a wider reality and it doesn't preclude the possibility of accurate models of a pre-inflationary universe.

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #159 on: January 31, 2012, 06:06:19 AM »
But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorem implies that the early quantum vacuum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning.

BGV theorem demonstrates that a class of eternal inflation models (which are not necessarily accurate models of reality) must have a singularity in their past.

It doesn't really tell us anything dramatic, it just leads us to the position as already stated: if such models of inflation are correct and there was a big bang singularity we cannot currently say anything reliable about the state of the universe at and beyond that boundary.

It does not prove that the kind of inflationary models it deals with are accurate. If they are it doesn't preclude the no boundary proposal and it doesn't preclude the possibility that our observable universe is embedded in a wider reality and it doesn't preclude the possibility of accurate models of a pre-inflationary universe.

This is probably why you cant find any info, reviews, or articles on it other than religious sites.   It looks like it doesnt prove anything real, and is just a theoretical proof resting on assumptions that may not even be correct.
Not only are the assumtions about things like the many inflationary models unproven, it specifically does not work when some inflationary models are used.  I really cant see how any conclusions can be drawn from it with any level of certainty.  It appears that it is being used almost exclusively as a "proof of god" by religious organizations, authors, and speakers.  Could it be correct, or partially correct?  Sure, but the point is that it could just as easily be completely wrong.

Can someone personally believe the assumptions and conclusion are correct?  Of course.  Someones faith and view of reality may require its conclusions to be correct so everything makes sense.  Thats totally cool.  It just cant be asserted to be factually correct, or the accepted view of the scientific community.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2012, 09:07:07 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #160 on: January 31, 2012, 02:00:28 PM »
But the BGV Theorem is independent of any physical description of the early universe. Their theorem implies that the early quantum vacuum state of the early universe (which is often erroneously and misleadingly categorized as "nothing") cannot be eternal in the past but must have had an absolute beginning.

BGV theorem demonstrates that a class of eternal inflation models (which are not necessarily accurate models of reality) must have a singularity in their past.

It doesn't really tell us anything dramatic, it just leads us to the position as already stated: if such models of inflation are correct and there was a big bang singularity we cannot currently say anything reliable about the state of the universe at and beyond that boundary.



"The remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein's equation. So even if Einstein's gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. - Alexander Vilenkin"



The BGV theorem applies to any universe which has on average been expanding throughout its history cannot be infinite in the past but must have a past space-time boundary. No eternal inflation model of the universe is necessary for the BGV to be compatible.

The ultimate conclusion of the BGV is that any universe which exhibits an average expansion greater than 0 must have had a beginning. Proposed prior "universes" or states of "reality" to the existence of this universe would exhibit an average expansion greater than 0 and therefore must also have had a beginning. An infinite regress of universe-creating universe is ludicrous; an absolute beginning of existence is the most sane of all proper conclusions.

Quote
It does not prove that the kind of inflationary models it deals with are accurate. If they are it doesn't preclude the no boundary proposal and it doesn't preclude the possibility that our observable universe is embedded in a wider reality and it doesn't preclude the possibility of accurate models of a pre-inflationary universe.

I suppose that by a "wider reality," you are merely referring to a proposed multiverse?

Even if our universe is just a part of a multiverse, composed of many universes, the theorem itself implies the multiverse itself must have a beginning. Highly speculative scenarios such as loop-quantum gravity models, string models, even closed time-like curves have been proposed to try to avoid this absolute beginning. However these models are fraught with problems and the bottom line is that none of these theories even if true succeed in restoring an eternal past. At most, they merely push the beginning back a step.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #161 on: January 31, 2012, 02:10:52 PM »
Can someone personally believe the assumptions and conclusion are correct?  Of course.  Someones faith and view of reality may require its conclusions to be correct so everything makes sense.  Thats totally cool.  It just cant be asserted to be factually correct, or the accepted view of the scientific community.

This doesn't amount to an argument.

Yes, the morons who came up with this theorem were a bunch of bible thumping, God-fearing, scientifically illiterate, biased good-for-nothings:


Alan Guth: born February 27, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist and cosmologist. Guth has researched elementary particle theory (and how particle theory is applicable to the early universe). Currently serving as Victor Weisskopf Professor of Physics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, he is the originator of the inflationary universe theory.[1][2]

He graduated from MIT in 1968 in physics and stayed to receive a master's and a doctorate, also in physics.

As a junior particle physicist, Guth first developed the idea of cosmic inflation in 1979 at Cornell and gave his first seminar on the subject in January 1980.[3][4] Moving on to Stanford University Guth formally proposed the idea of cosmic inflation in 1981, the idea that the nascent universe passed through a phase of exponential expansion that was driven by a positive vacuum energy density (negative vacuum pressure). The results of the WMAP mission in 2006 made the case for cosmic inflation very compelling.


Arvind Borde: Senior Professor
Department of Mathematics
C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University
Director, Technology Center, Southampton College, 1999--2005
Director, Natural Science Division, Southampton College, 2001--2003
Webmaster, Southampton College, 1995--2000
KITP Scholar and General Member
    Kavli Institute of Theoretical Physics, University of California at Santa Barbara, 2007--2009.
Visiting Scientist
    Institute of Cosmology, Tufts University, 1993--2006.
Visiting Scientist
    Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT, 2001--2002.
Guest Scientist
    High Energy Theory Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory, 1987--2000.
Research Associate
    Relativity Group, Syracuse University, 1985--1987.
Post-doctoral Fellow
    with W.G. Unruh, University of British Columbia, 1982--19
    * Inflationary spacetimes are incomplete in past directions
      (with A.H. Guth and A. Vilenkin), Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 90, 151301 (2003).
    * Constraints on spatial distributions of negative energy
      (with L.H. Ford and T.A. Roman), Phys. Rev. D Vol. 65, 084002 (2002)
    * Causal continuity in degenerate spacetimes
      (with F. Dowker, R. Garcia, R. Sorkin and S. Surya), Class. and Quant. Grav., Vol. 16, 3457 (1999).
    * Creation and structure of baby universes in monopole collisions
      (with Mark Trodden and Tanmay Vachaspati), Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 59, 043513 (1999).
    * How impossible is topology change?
      Bull. Astr. Soc. India, Vol. 25, 571 (1997).
    * Violations of the weak energy condition in inflating spacetimes
      (with Alexander Vilenkin), Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 56, 717 (1997).
    * Regular black holes and topology change
      Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 55, 7615 (1997).
    * Singularities in inflationary cosmology
      (with Alexander Vilenkin), Proceedings of the Sixth Quantum Gravity Seminar, Moscow, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, Vol. 5, 813 (1996).
    * The impossibility of steady-state inflation
      (with Alexander Vilenkin), in Relativisitic Astrophysics: the Proceedings of the Eighth Yukawa Symposium, ed. by M. Sasaki, Universal Academic Press, Japan (1995).
    * Open and Closed Universes, Initial Singularities and Inflation
      Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 50, 3692 (1994).
    * Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity
      (with Alexander Vilenkin), Phys. Rev. Lett., Vol. 72, 3305 (1994).
    * Geodesic Focusing, Energy Conditions and Singularities
      Class. and Quant. Grav., Vol. 4, 343 (1987).
    * Hamiltonian Formalism for the Spin-5/2 Gauge Field
      Phys. Rev. D, Vol. 26, 407 (1982).



Alexander Vilenkin: (13 May 1949, Kharkiv, Ukraine, Soviet Union) is Professor of Physics and Director of the Institute of Cosmology at Tufts University. A theoretical physicist who has been working in the field of cosmology for 25 years, Vilenkin has written over 150 papers and is responsible for introducing the ideas of eternal inflation and quantum creation of the universe from a quantum vacuum. His work in cosmic strings has been pivotal.


ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #162 on: January 31, 2012, 04:32:49 PM »
You win.  The BVG theorem is 100% correct and there are no other possible outcomes or scenarios.  Whatever the BVG theorem says happened, or will happen, did infact happen or will happen.   :tup   
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #163 on: January 31, 2012, 04:42:09 PM »
You win.  The BVG theorem is 100% correct and there are no other possible outcomes or scenarios.  Whatever the BVG theorem says happened, or will happen, did infact happen or will happen.   :tup

Finally
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #164 on: January 31, 2012, 04:43:02 PM »
You win.  The BVG theorem is 100% correct and there are no other possible outcomes or scenarios.  Whatever the BVG theorem says happened, or will happen, did infact happen or will happen.   :tup

Finally

 :rollin
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Cruithne

  • Posts: 277
  • Watched
Re: @H
« Reply #165 on: February 01, 2012, 04:55:55 AM »
The ultimate conclusion of the BGV is that any universe which exhibits an average expansion greater than 0 must have had a beginning. Proposed prior "universes" or states of "reality" to the existence of this universe would exhibit an average expansion greater than 0 and therefore must also have had a beginning. An infinite regress of universe-creating universe is ludicrous; an absolute beginning of existence is the most sane of all proper conclusions.

An absolute beginning is at odds with the authors' opinion as stated in the paper itself (which can be found at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf). From the discussion section (discretionary highlighting is my own).

"Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper
time (finite affine length, in the null case).

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. This is the chief result of our paper. The result depends on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic."

Quote
I suppose that by a "wider reality," you are merely referring to a proposed multiverse?

Merely? Nope.

With that I'll take my leave from this thread - one can only lead a horse to water. In parting I'll leave a couple of Richard Feynman quotes which I feel are appropriate (particularly to notions of "sane" conclusions).

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

"What I am going to tell you about is what we teach our physics students in the third or fourth year of graduate school. It is my task to convince you not to turn away because you don't understand it. You see my physics students don't understand it. That is because I don't understand it. Nobody does." (Speaking about QED, the study of which he was awarded a Nobel Prize for).

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #166 on: February 01, 2012, 05:16:21 AM »
^^^^^ Very nice.  Thank you.

Love the bolded part.
So is this basically the authors themselves saying that their theorem may very well be wrong as the assumtions they based the theorem on are/may be incorrect or incomplete?  Are they also saying that some new information and physics are required to give the full answer to describe the universe, including what happened before the big bang?

Interesting.
I think that is pretty much exactly what we have all been saying from the very start.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2012, 05:34:26 AM by eric42434224 »
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #167 on: February 01, 2012, 03:54:24 PM »
The ultimate conclusion of the BGV is that any universe which exhibits an average expansion greater than 0 must have had a beginning. Proposed prior "universes" or states of "reality" to the existence of this universe would exhibit an average expansion greater than 0 and therefore must also have had a beginning. An infinite regress of universe-creating universe is ludicrous; an absolute beginning of existence is the most sane of all proper conclusions.

An absolute beginning is at odds with the authors' opinion as stated in the paper itself (which can be found at http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/0110/0110012v2.pdf). From the discussion section (discretionary highlighting is my own).

"Our argument shows that null and timelike geodesics are, in general, past-incomplete in inflationary models, whether or not energy conditions hold, provided only that the averaged expansion condition Hav > 0 holds along these past-directed geodesics. This is a stronger conclusion than the one arrived at in previous work in that we have shown under reasonable assumptions that almost all causal geodesics, when extended to the past of an arbitrary point, reach the boundary of the inflating region of spacetime in a finite proper
time (finite affine length, in the null case).

What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibilities have been discussed, one being that the boundary of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of the Universe in a quantum nucleation event. The boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which can be determined from the appropriate instanton. Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear that unless the averaged expansion condition can somehow be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order to determine the correct conditions at the boundary. This is the chief result of our paper. The result depends on just one assumption: the Hubble parameter H has a positive value when averaged over the affine parameter of a past-directed null or noncomoving timelike geodesic."

This is now the third time I have addressed this passage. They are merely being scholarly; no known functioning model can avoid averaged expansion!


Quote
An absolute beginning is at odds with the authors' opinion


If so, then why would they go on to state:


"Hard as physicists have tried to find some kind of an inflationary-model universe that does not have a beginning, still, every single cosmological model based on an inflationary hypothesis has to have a beginning."

"With reasonable assumption, one can show that, even in the context of inflation with many 'bubbles' forming, there would still be, somewhere, an absolute beginning."

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning".

ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #168 on: February 02, 2012, 02:47:41 PM »
If at all the conclusion of the BGV Theorem that the universe began to exist is further questioned:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #169 on: February 02, 2012, 04:03:34 PM »
If at all the conclusion of the BGV Theorem that the universe began to exist is further questioned:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/


Funny.  If we didnt buy into BVG by now, what would make you think an online post from an Intelligent Design Blog, regurgitating the exact same info you already posted, make us change our mind?  Really?  This is what you present to us?  An article implying he presented this at the Hawking Symposium???  LOL.  Not only was he not a speaker, he wasnt even there!  The article merely states the SAME info you already posted...and you quote it from an ID bolg!  LOL

Get back to us with any kind of serious scientific website or legitimate scientific community, agreeing with BVG.  And by that I dont mean only ID, religious, or Craig supporter websites.  LOL.
C'mon man, you can do better than that.   :rollin
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #170 on: February 02, 2012, 04:09:58 PM »
If at all the conclusion of the BGV Theorem that the universe began to exist is further questioned:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/vilenkins-verdict-all-the-evidence-we-have-says-that-the-universe-had-a-beginning/


Funny.  If we didnt buy into BVG by now, what would make you think an online post from an Intelligent Design Blog, regurgitating the exact same info you already posted, make us change our mind?  Really?  This is what you present to us?  An article implying he presented this at the Hawking Symposium???  LOL.  Not only was he not a speaker, he wasnt even there!  The article merely states the SAME info you already posted...and you quote it from an ID bolg!  LOL

Get back to us with any kind of serious scientific website or legitimate scientific community, agreeing with BVG.  And by that I dont mean only ID, religious, or Craig supporter websites.  LOL.
C'mon man, you can do better than that.   :rollin

Because Vilenkin's quote at the end is quite ambiguous as to the conclusion reached by modern science on the beginning of our universe:

"All the evidence we have says that the universe had a beginning.”

But don't worry, you can still believe that the universe has always existed.

Oh, and that it caused itself to come into existence from non-existence.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #171 on: February 02, 2012, 04:31:32 PM »
Ill stick with the entire scientific community on this one and go with the "we dont have enough evidence yet to know what really happened".  Not with someone who is only quoted on religious websites by people who have pre-formed ideas that BVG supports.  But hey, whatever floats your Ark.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline yeshaberto

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 8739
  • Gender: Male
  • Somebody Get Me A Doctor! - VH
Re: @H
« Reply #172 on: February 02, 2012, 04:34:54 PM »
It sounds like time to agree to disagree and move on...

Offline eric42434224

  • Posts: 2339
  • Gender: Male
  • Wilson
Re: @H
« Reply #173 on: February 02, 2012, 04:37:29 PM »
It sounds like time to agree to disagree and move on...

Absolutely.
Oh shit, you're right!

rumborak

Rumborak to me 10/29

Offline Omega

  • Posts: 811
  • Gender: Male
Re: @H
« Reply #174 on: February 02, 2012, 04:38:30 PM »
Ill stick with the entire scientific community on this one

Because Alexander Vilenkin, Arvind Borde and Alan Guth are not part of the scientific community.
ΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩΩ